about 3 years ago
Voltaire
369 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
He has been one of the guys I’ve been most suspicious of for years. Why he has always got a free pass is beyond me.
He got a pass from me since I demand specific evidence. Which, unfortunately, seems to exist. Verbing noun, I wanted so badly for him to be clean.
In theory I would like all the players to be clean, but that means the dirty ones have to be caught. I guess I would have liked for him to not have used, but that shipped sailed a long time ago. This is good for baseball. It will mean that natural talents (I’m looking at you Grady) will get their due, rather than enhanced monsters.
My biggest suspects on the tribe.
Hafner – no duh.
Peralta
Martinez (he is pretty low though)
Lee
possibly some scrubs, but they don’t really matter.
Grady is near the bottom. Why? I remember reading something his rookie year that he was tested alot with a USA team, and he was clean. It was surprising at the time as this is when it was rampant in baseball.
There has been minor league testing and suspensions since 2002, so all of our core players were being tested before they ever hit the majors. Their big-league performances all had solid precedents with their minor league scouting and statistics.
Of course, tests can be fooled, but there is significantly less chance that a minor leaguer ends up with an expensive, sophisticated PED strategy than a major leaguer, especially if he wasn’t a first-round bonus baby.
I have to be honest, Dave, the fact that your list is mostly hitters by itself indicates that it’s not a sensible list.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
3 out of 4 being hitters is non sensible? There are more position players than pitchers, especially key pitchers (non-scrub starters, key relievers). On hindsight I should have added Betancourt for obvious reasons.
And look, these are my opinions. I’m not a writer. I’m not a journalist. If I can’t speculate, what can I do?
What is the basis for your speculation? Hafner, okay, I could see how someone could think he’s up to something. But Peralta? Why? Because he plays pretty well for a nonathletic guy? Because he looks like a juicer? Because he’s a Latin? I can’t see why anyone should suspect Jhonny other than his defiance of appearances.
I’m just saying, sluggers have long been the poster boys or this stuff, but based on what we know about the effects of various PEDs — and based on who’s been busted — it seems predominantly to help and to be used by pitchers and slap hitters. Hafner, “no duh,” and I’m not going to argue though I may not agree. But it makes as much sense if not more to suspect Westbrook and Lee than it does Hafner.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
This, but I wanted somebody clean to pass Bonds.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
disagree. there is no tragedy in this story. at least not as it relates to major league players and their records.
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you can’t understand why A-Rod was never under particular suspicion, you must not be trying very hard to understand.
His best seasons — all statistically very similar — have been at ages 19, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 31.
There is simply nothing suspicious about that.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Uhh, a ridiculous amounts of home runs. A body 20% larger than all major leaguers not named Bonds.
Nah, nothing to be suspicious of here.
A ridiculous amount of home runs is also proof that he’s a really, really good hitter. A-Rod’s been hitting home runs his entire career, he didn’t all of sudden start getting better after his prime. He was also the #1 pick in the draft out of high school (I think) so he’s been a fantastic hitter his whole life. I don’t see anything suspicious about that.
Are we at the point now where every great baseball player must be assumed to have taken steroids?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 7, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If he was closing in on 40, a ridiculous number of home runs would be really weird. But Rodriguez has kind of been doing this.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 7, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So everyone who is good is automatically suspicious? Even if he’s a phenomenal all-around athlete who was an MVP-caliber hitter at age 19? I’m sorry, that make no sense.
And again, “ridiculous amounts of home runs” should not be considered a leading indicator for particular suspicion. The only thing I can see in A-Rod’s record to be suspicious about is that he had a little trouble staying healthy early in his career. Fast recovery is probably the number-one thing that gets most players initially to dabble in PEDs.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
For the record, I agree with everything Jay’s said in this thread that I’ve read so far. Logical, reasonable, evidence-based. Some people need to take note.
I assume you mean me. I guess I screwed up with my illogical, unreasonable, non-evidence based speculation that turned out to be correct (A-rod is a juicer). I’ll try not to be correct next time.
by oxforddave on Feb 7, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i don’t know why “wow” or “shocked” should even get used about this stuff anymore. if canseco said it happend, it probably did.
by Brick. on Feb 7, 2009 12:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
which reminds me I meant to link to Will Carroll’s piece from a few days ago (free). Performance enhancers are a reality. Probably always have been, probably always will.
I’m still amused that baseball continues to get bashed in the media for things that happened five years ago, although I clearly admit it has relevance to still active players. Why is it that there’s only outrage over baseball? Is it a higher moral intellect of fans? reporters? One that doesn’t exist in other major sports? Take one look at the headlines on SI.com’s NFL page:
1) Dana Stubblefield cooperating with feds about his steriod use.
2) Michael Irving cooperating with police about some altercation in which he was allegedly threatened with a gun.
3) Houston Texans players questioned about mini-camp drills in which their coach violated league rules and demanded no-pads, full-contact drills that resulted in three season-ending injuries.
4) Two Oakland Raiders got in a fist fight on a team plane, one getting punched in the face.
5) Terry Glenn arrested for wandering the halls of a hotel; charged with public intoxication and having pot on his person.
6) Jevon Kearse charged with reckless driving, a downgraded charge from his DUI.
That league is dysfunctional. I hear no outcry. Whether people care or not doesn’t justify the dysfunction (steroids, DUI, abuse, guns, etc). I’m not suggesting everything in MLB should just be ignored. There’s no legal argument involved. Bonds and Marion Jones are being prosecuted based on their lying about an investigation, not because of their steroid. If it’s not legal, I guess it’s moral. Yet those morals seem only to apply to one sport, and I think that horse is beaten long beyond dead.
I think it’s the records that baseball fans love more than any other sport. Baseball is the only sport where you can statistically compare how someone from today’s game would fare in past generations. While there are other factors that can alter the measurement, (Negro League players not part of the talent pool) steroids are a direct form of cheating and it taints what many baseball fans value, the history.
Rodriguez on CBS. I laughed when I first saw this a year ago. I think Bill Simmons mentioned it also.
Will Bonds now get his due? Everyone was counting on Rodriguez to break the all time HR record which, again, I found amusing.
Pujols is in a great position to put up numbers long-term. In general, great all-around athletes age much more gracefully in baseball than one-dimensional sluggers. Despite being a first-baseman, Pujols is not one-dimensional. He was a solid third baseman (I believe he moved over for Rolen) and a capable corner outfielder, and he’s won a Gold Glove at 1B (for whatever that’s worth). Yet he is actually playing 1B now, which should greatly reduce injury risk and long-term wear and tear. He’ll have to play into his 40s to surpass Bonds, but it is conceivable.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
I get that. I’m just saying that people talk about Pujols like his poop is pink and smells like flowers. “Baseball might well be a roid factory, but at least we have the purity of Pujols.” I like the guy, but the hageography is a little much.
Raab didn’t invent that word, but he did know how to spell it.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Ordinarily I wouldn’t correct spelling, but when a respected, established journalist drops a 50-center on you, he ought to spell it right.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
First of all, it seems you’re pretty much suspicious of everybody who hits home runs.
Second, whether or not it’s suspicious doesn’t make you wish for the person to be innocent any less.
Steel Nick
Hank Aaron was on steroids!! Babe Ruth was on steroids!!!
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
I beleieve there was a more complete article about Pujols and his relationship to his trainer in SI, but this is the best that I could find. Doesn’t prove anything…only fuels the speculation.
I thought Pujols is young enough to have been subject to testing his whole professional career.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Feb 7, 2009 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
Some potentially ginormous bombshells:
- Greg Maddux
- David Wright
- Josh Hamilton
- Cole Hamels
- David Price
- Ortiz, Papelbon, Pedroia
But I agree that A-Rod is a bit of a shock.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Nah. Lester gets a pass because he’s cancer boy. Moyer, everyone would just say, oh yeah that makes sense.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
Lester gets a pass becausehe’s cancer boyMitchell has made sure no BoSock ever gets caught.
Fixed.
by JulioBernazard on Feb 7, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Another reason to be very wary of Ortiz. The guy never showed the type of BoSox numbers while he was playing with the Twinkies. I’m thinking more of the timely hitting than anything else. The numbers are obviously better (especially RBIs), but that can be attributed to being on a better team. How he became the most feared hitter in baseball practically from nowhere is really strange.
This was a guy who was RELEASED by the Twins.
He didn’t get much opportunity with the Twins, and he didn’t have much experience at the time. The Twins are idiots about hitting, and this is just one example.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
I thought he was released because the Twins knew they wouldn’t be able to afford him. He was obviously a very good hitter in 2000 and 2002. But the Red Sox didn’t pay him much more than the Twins did ($1,250,000 over $950,000).
It wasn’t money, it was just roster space. They literally cut him in the same way that we cut Michael Aubrey. Which make it funnier.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
cf. Lance Armstrong.
probably the most sophisticated drug-taker in all of sports, because he has to piss daily for the man and never gets caught.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan, but he got away with it, no doubt.
Is EPO a drug discussed in US sports?
See Doc this is really complicated. I’m positive that Lance’s Oncologist was givin’ him a “steroid” as part of his chemo. I’d also bet that the same doc was given him EPO for his chemo induced anemia. So, if he’s legitimately taking these drugs/hormones to save his life, is he a “cheater” at cycling. I don’t think so.
by mauichuck on Feb 7, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
the question, of course, is at what point his EPO is saving his life, and at what point it is enhancing his performance.
What drug cocktail can he take legally now in 2009? And how far away is he from cancer that treatment is distinguished from performance enhancement?
I am also curious about EPO use in the US (being in Europe, I only hear about epo and its latest derivative (which escapes me right now). Is this used in the major US sports?
Bonds is an awesome baseball player. That he was willing to turn himself into a super-freak to be the best ever is, I think, more a statement about his psychology than his baseball talent.
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
i will always give barry his due. HEY. if a rod was putting up those numbers on roids, and Bonds was putting up THOSE numbers on roids …
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
the numbers would blow your mind
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 8, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Harold Reynolds brings up the bit about Gene Orza tipping A-Rod off about a “random” test. MLB Network is awesome.
it is strange listening to a lot of ex-players commenting on this…
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
I am more shocked by the fact that people thought he was clean. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that the majority of players were users, say that it sucks and move on. It’s all the pretending that this guy or that guy is clean that annoys me when most were dirty. Quite frankly, I don’t care if they were users as long as they don’t pretend otherwise. It’s the rightious bs from guys like ARod and Clemens that annoys the heck out of me.
Actually, if you look at the actual tests, you’ll see that roughly 5% of players tested positive in 2003. Although I’m sure there were guys getting around the tests, I hardly think it was more than 45%. Let’s stick to facts, please.
Was every player tested? I don’t think so. Thus, the 5% figure isn’t exactly a fact. It’s not the relevant piece of information.
That’s why I said roughly. While I doubt MLB worked to make the testing statistically representative of the entire league, I doubt the figure would be greater than, say, 15% for the whole league. In other words, there not only is there no evidence that the majority of players used, there is evidence against it.
The tests were not comprehensive. Essentially, 5-7% of players were using something and not even attempting to hide it.
Hell, I think hGH is still not being screened to this day.
I believe the circumstantial evidence is that the majority of players, and possibly an overwhelming majority, have used one thing or another at one time or another.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Although purely circumstantial, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to me is simply the way players talk about steroids, and about players who have been busted. Out of probably 2000 major leaguers who have been active at some point this decade, you would have trouble finding on-the-record quotes from more than two of them that are critical of Barry Bonds in any way. And Barry is not well liked to say the least.
I believe this indicates that the great majority of player have used something at some point, that all players know this, and that it’s very clear to them that Barry has shouldered an immense proportion of the heat for PEDs, and that they’re all on thin ice and should count their blessings. That is a pretty grand inference, I know, but I cannot think of any other possible explanation for the behavior. You can find 40 guys to go on the record about Curt Schilling being a pain in the ass.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
Hell, I think hGH is still not being screened to this day.
That’s correct. It’s cuz there is no direct test for hGH. The IOC, which proports to have the most sophisticated PED testing program in the world, does not test for hGH directly. What the look for is an abnormal ratio between testosterone and its precursors. This is what tripped Floyd Landis up in the 2006 TdF.
I thought it’s because the union hasn’t agreed to blood tests, and there is no urine test. I’m not saying what you wrote isn’t also true.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
You are right, I don’t have facts. I only have my opinion. I also know that there were steriods that weren’t or can’t be tested for. When you look at a sport like cycling that does a tremendous amount of testing and still see cyclists being busted all the time (and some only later after tests are updated) and compare that to MLB’s testing, I have a hard time putting a lot of faith in 5% or 15% numbers.
It may be less than “most”, but would you be that surprised if that number rose to 25% with better testing? 25% would be a rather significant number imo.
Close here dvd, there’s pretty accurate testing for steroids – all of ‘em. What testers are having difficulty detecting are polypetides – a totally different type of hormone – like hGH and EPO and it’s congeners. Try doing a little more research before you go off.
You’re the doctor, so I’ll take your word for it on the tests available. However, even you admit that there are substances that aren’t tested for. Is there a difference in the infraction if the substance is some steroid, hGH or EPO? All are PEDs. (I’ll be sure to choose my words, e.g. steroids vs. PEDs, more carefully in the future)
I believe that many players of the late 90’s early 00’s have used some type of PED. I believe it was the culture of baseball, and there really is no evidence that will change my opinion that PEDs were not rampant during that time. I do not think it diminishes what the players of that era have accomplished nor do I really care who used and who hasn’t. My only issue is when people start saying this guy did not use, but that other guy did. It’s sad, but the truly clean players of that era will have to be judged against those that were not clean. Every fan has a choice to believe that the majority was clean or the majority was dirty, I simply choose the latter.
Yeah, well, that’s roughly wrong, as Jay is saying and I don’t think it’s really fair to jump all over somebody for basing statements not in fact when that’s exactly what you are doing.
It’s hard not to get polarizing in these discussions about steroids but the bottom line is neither opinion-the highly one or the optimistic one, have much to be proud of when it comes to reason or analysis.
What I said:
That’s why I said roughly. While I doubt MLB worked to make the testing statistically representative of the entire league, I doubt the figure would be greater than, say, 15% for the whole league. In other words, there not only is there no evidence that the majority of players used, there is evidence against it.
Jay makes a good point – this does not mean that players may have used before, may have used in the future, or may have gotten away with it. But as far as concrete evidence is concerned, this is what we have. Now, there’s lots of evidence, of varying quality, to support Jay’s (and I assume your) opinion, and that’s the way I lean. What is important, however, is to make sure that your level of certainty matches your level of evidence. dvd, although probably right, certainly overstated his case.
I think the Mitchell report, while flawed, lays out compelling direct evidence for well over 7%.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
or the optimistic one
Note I do not take the optimistic view. I agree with Jay’s comments here. What I am against is the irresponsible and useless guessing of specific players free of any credible evidence.
A lot of people have taken guesses at who profiles as a good candidate for PED use in this very thread, voltaire. Is it wrong to even suggest that without hard evidence? Maybe things just aren’t as objective as you’d like it to be. Maybe that’s the whole point of this thread – like mauichuck’s detailing the ludicrous difference between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” performance enhancers.
We have definitive evidence, in the form of all of the positive tests from 2005 onwards, plus this from the minor leagues, and those from the Olympic baseball participants (that’s where Termmel Sledge tested positive, for example) to come up with an overall profile of steroid users. Lots of pitchers, lots of scrubs, etc.
Is it wrong to even suggest that without hard evidence? Maybe things just aren’t as objective as you’d like it to be.
Yes, it is. That’s the entire point of my comment. I am saying these things in an attempt to stop some of the pointless and absurd speculation about specific players. Unless you have evidence, saying Player X used is as likely as me saying Player Y dies his hair.
The article you linked at the top of this fanshot even says that – due to confidentiality agreements – this SI report cannot be confirmed or denied. Is this “evidence” hard enough for you?
No one is speculating over which MLB’er mistreats his wife. This is steroids we’re talking, in a league with rampant abuse. I think you are wielding a pretty self-righteous “truth” hammer right now.
I have to agree. This is a discussion in a public forum, but isn’t there some latitude for essentially shooting the bull, as long as it’s not mislabeled and couldn’t easily be misconstrued as something substantive?
isn’t there some latitude for essentially shooting the bull, as long as it’s not mislabeled and couldn’t easily be misconstrued as something substantive?
Yup, there is. What bugs me is when, instead of discussing possibilities, people claim to know the truth about certain players, like dvd above. See my astrology comment.
Okay. Again, I think the key is not mis-representing yourself.
by Jay on Feb 9, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
Nope, not every player was tested – it’s called statistical sampling. Pretty common method in medical research, but ya gotta do a little more math. Ya gotta calculate stuff like the CI, Student T test etc. to make it float inside the medical community.
That’s not news to me. But you think baseball did that? When they were testing only for kicks, back in 2003? And even if they did, have we actually seen the number they derived that indicated what their final analysis was as to percentage of total players.
Yeah, given all the stat heads running around – plus the high probability that some medical types were involved – my guess is that they made it at least look like a scientific study.
Yeah but where’s the number? We’re just guessing at it. MLB is the only one who knows that they got 75% +/- 2.5.
You think a major multi-billion dollar business negotiated a procedure with a union that represents only millionaires, and they agreed on something that was genuinely scientific? Maybe, but I wouldn’t count on it.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
MLB tested how many players? About 100? I think that’s what I read. There are 1,200 players on the 40-man rosters. What are the odds that a 100-player sample, admittedly unscientifically sampled, so egregiously misrepresented the group by ten times as much? (5% to over 50) Extremely low, I’d think. Note that I said it could be higher and probably is – but over 50? In 2003, specifically, at the time of the testing? No.
Was that positives? I thought that was total players tested. That means they tested a lot more people, which would make the 5% figure a lot more reliable.
I just double checked, 104 POSITIVES. I believe the threshold for testing was 7.5? So that gives me ~1,400 tests, assuming that it hit 7.5 exactly. That’s 1,400, or more than active rosters. So, it looks like they tested EVERYONE?
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Yes, they tested everyone. What’s the big mystery here?
by Jay on Feb 9, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t see where A-Rod has been particularly self-righteous. He was asked, and he denied it — as literally hundreds of players did in his position (assuming the reports are true). I don’t think he ever made a big deal about it.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
True. My beef is probably more with the media speculation. “Self-righteous” may have been a bit strong.
He is a mega-preener and not all that admirable. I just try to only criticize people for what they’ve actually done.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Is this the same Jay who wrote this?
Accountability must really be dead at this point. People seem confused when you even bring it up.
by JulioBernazard on Feb 7, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying he’s not accountable for using steroids — if he did — I’m just saying he was never self-righteous in his denials.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
But I’m actually really glad you remembered that line.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
This might be the most perfect Comment I’ve ever seen.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
…still listening to MLB network commentary from ex-players. People keep bringing up two aspects of A-Rod which leave them surprised that he tested positive:
- he takes his job as a ballplayer very seriously
- he works very hard
I would think these two things would make it more likely, not less, that a guy would at least experiment with PEDs
second annoyance:
commentator says, “when can I as a fan think baseball is clean again”
When was baseball, or any pro sport, “clean”? Notions of some kind of mythical past purity always bug me. The “good” old days never existed.
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
It is frustrating. The history of baseball as I’ve come to understand it is one of steady conflict, with periodic scandals, injustices, and other distortions. In this way it resembles any activity that I can think of with a large number of participants. To avoid the distress of idealism or cynicism, I’ve tried to resist making neat—clean—categorical opinions on good and bad, pure and wicked.
Wait, wait, is this the same jhon who argued that simply being arrested was proof positive that the arrestee musta been doing something wrong?
I’m sorry you’re so alarmed by this. I believe I must have used the word “guilt” in a misleading way there, Chuck. I think that accusations of a particular set of offenses tend to have a sound basis. What constitutes a punishable crime is murky territory. I never said that they should lock up and throw away the key on every bad guy—just that these guys are probably guilty of being bad bastards.
I’m also dating a pro-bono coordinator for a women’s violence group, so I’m under a sort of influence there too.
Like, if Canseco says you did it, we’ve learned not that you almost certainly did. Doesn’t mean they should be banned from the game or whatever.
i’ve agreed with every comment you’ve made as of this place in the thread
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I agree. Nobody had a reputation as a harder worker than Bonds and Clemens did.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure if anyone caught it before the Super Bowl, but Hines Ward had platelet-rich plasma injected into his knee before the big game. And there was no outcry whatsoever. These lines of right and wrong are so blurred it’s not even cool.
And before anyone brings up the “healing injuries vs. improving performance” argument, find me a professional athlete in season that isn’t nursing at least some sort of injury.
by supermarioelia on Feb 7, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
I spent part of the day before the super bowl with an offensive lineman for the Ravens (he’s married to a friend of mine). Ouch. The guy is big as a house, several years younger than me, still on his rookie contract and is about to go in for his 4th and possibly 5th surgery (one of which will likely be a microfracture procedure on his knee). It’s a hard knock life for those guys.
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Is that the threshold though? Anything goes as long as the player can’t physically perform without it? I guess this is no different than using painkillers which I find to be further clouding the issue. On one hand I understand the attractiveness of “natural” performances, but on the other hand the wide range of treaments and indications make singling out steroids/HGH/amphetamines pretty silly.
by supermarioelia on Feb 7, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
I only wondered, but I think it’s fair to say that the fact of these things existing muddies the ideal.
My own threshold reaches the point where competitive self-enhancement becomes destructive and life-threatening. At that point it becomes a problem for me. It sounds to me like baseball’s doing a good job at resisting that.
It’s not unfortunate in the sense that a “cheater” was caught, but it’s unfortunate in the sense that in our particular community—the smart ones, I suppose—I’ve spent so many years defending Rodriguez as One of the Greatest Players Ever to simple-minded baseball fans who swallow the unclutch ESPN Kool-Aid. I’ve pounded my metaphorical fists over and over again when comparisons between Rodiriguez and Jeter come up in discussion, asking how could you not appreciate his brilliance? And then the asshat goes and makes everything I’ve ever said irrelevant. And this is all we’ll hear from now until he’s off the ballot for Cooperstown, how he was never worthy of any accolades he barely received anyway.
And I wanted him to get the record too. It wasn’t because I never suspected he might use—at some point you suspect everyone—but it’s because I wanted someone who was never guilty in the court of public opinion to get the record. Then I wouldn’t have to hear about it like we did when Bonds was at the top. And I’m not very confident Pujols has the longevity for it.
For some odd reason I keep wondering what would happen if someone like Ripken got busted. Would that do it? Could we all just get over it then? Because if Ripken did it, there’s no point in arguing over who does or doesn’t get an asterisk; They’re all guilty if Ripken’s guilty, and we can just accept that and move on. I’m just tired of this stuff being sensational. I guess that’s a shame, but so be it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 7, 2009 2:56 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
sounds like another great athlete’s recent case …
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
Not me. But I think once someone like that gets busted, this stops being something people get up in arms about.
After ESPN blows up the world anyway.
Steel Nick
It would shock me. When he finally started taking some rest days, his numbers jumped immediately. All that consecutive-days stuff really was running him down.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Nick, even if A Rod was mainlining juice during the fourth inning in the dugout, he is still one of the Greatest Players Ever.
and I’m pretty sure Nick would agree with you, but thats not how he’s going to be perceived by the public. he’s a “user” now.
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Nick – He might very well be “unclutch.” Remember, there’s essentially no such thing as clutch, but in rare cases, there is such a thing as unclutch. Most players, given a large enough sample size, will perform to their normal abilities in the postseason. But a very small percentage have a screw loose in pressure spots. This is not only a sound psychological idea, but I’m pretty sure it’s been shown to be true statistically.
I disagree. I think clutch exists but is rare, and unclutch exists and is not all that rare.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
I’d like to hear your thoughts on clutch someday
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 7, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
While I don’t disagree, it wasn’t really what I was driving at. But whenever we get into it about clutch here, that’s essentially where I fall: No man raises his level of play in pressure situations, but plenty could unwind.
I’m still not convinced that applies to Alex Rodriguez, but again that’s not what I’m arguing.
Steel Nick
It’s complicated. If we can’t measure something, instead of saying “it isn’t currently quantifiable,” we sometimes say, “we can’t measure it and therefore it definitely doesn’t exist.” Stress is real and physical – and doesn’t central limit theorem suggest that there are going to be a ton of MLB’ers who are fold-able? But how did they get so advanced in baseball in the first place if they didn’t have the nerves of a fighter pilot? But I hear that fighter pilot calm is created, not born.
It’s complicated. If we can’t measure something, instead of saying "it isn’t currently quantifiable," we sometimes say, "we can’t measure it and therefore it definitely doesn’t exist."
Key point. A related fallacy is, “I just discovered this new way of analyzing things, and since it’s the coolest thing I’ve ever seen, the answers it provides must be definitive.”
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
I used to play piano a lot when I was a youngster, and I really was a mediocre player. Especially in practice. But I had the weirdest ability to play perfectly at recitals and competitions. The pressure made me focus.
I suspect this was the case with Horry. In general, he squandered his talent. But on numerous occasions he showed us what he could have been.
If this is the case with Horry, you can say he’s not a very good player or at the very least he’s not giving his teammates everything he has during regular playing time. If a player does focus and play better in pressure situations all that shows me is he’s not playing as well as he could be every day.
Steel Nick
All Robert Horry did was make a few clutch shots in playoff games when he was given the opportunity. He had the benefit of being on some very good teams and having the chance to be in a lot of playoff games. I don’t think he has any “special” ability to play well in the clutch. I’ll bet there are many NBA player who, given the same opportunities that he’s had, would make those same shots.
If you’re playing in the NBA (or the NFL or MLB), every game is a pressure situation. These guys don’t make it to that level if they can’t play under pressure. The idea that some player can raise his game to an extra level in the playoffs is silly. If that’s true, why don’t they play that way all the time?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
Because it’s exhausting. And Brad, are you telling me that you perform at the same exact level every day and in every way? I sure as hell don’t.
No, Chuck, but the ups and downs are random. I certainly don’t always raise my level in pressure situations. Nobody does.
That’s the key. Given a small sample size (which playoff situation usually are), some player will always perform better than their average and some will perform worse. That’s the randomness of life. Robert Horry is the benificiary of this. He had the opportunity to make some big shots in the playoffs, and he made most of them.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
Well I do and have raised my level of performance in pressure situations.
This small sample size business/mantra is tiresome. Statistics is a quantitative discipline, not qualitative – a math teacher like you knows this. Simply stating that a sample size is too small is insufficient; you need to quantify the sample size needed to reach the desired Confidence Interval. I know that you’re aware of how to calculate a CI based on population standard deviation, sample size, population mean and sample mean. One of these days I’ll sit down and do the math.
Any way, I’ve willed myself to better performance on numerous occasions. I’m sure that you can site days in rehab when your anger/desire/pig-headedness drove you to new personal bests. Here’s hoping that you have many more of those days.
by mauichuck on Feb 8, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m more recently of the approach that we don’t know as much as we think we do, about anything let alone baseball, so declaring Jeter clutch when he empirically is not is as rash as saying that people cannot – as you said – elevate themselves when the occasion demands it. We know so much more about performance evaluation now than we used to, so it has become vogue to reject out of hand anything that is difficult to quantify or slightly voodoo. Kind of like how defense was underrated for the past 8-10 years. We’re humans, we’re complicated, and we need to respect that. But I think that you are dead right here – especially about SS being a measure of strength, not absolute worth – and taking your statement in conjunction with Brad’s will probably lead us closer to what really is going on with clutch.
OK, I’m not saying that everybody performs the same in the clutch as they do in regular situations. I’m sure there are some people who let their fear and nervousness get to them more than others, while some people raise their focus. I just think it’s talked about way more than it should be, and people use one or two moments to judge a player’s clutch abilities. That’s whay I mean by small sample size. Horry makes a few shots and he’s a clutch shooter, Jim Leyritz hits a coupe playoff homers and he’s a clutch hitter. That’s what is silly.
You’re right, Chuck, that I do know about the will it takes to overcome adversity. As I mentioned to you, it’s hard for me to compare myself to other people because I don’t know anyone else who’s been through what I have. I just assume everyone would push themselves through rehab like I have done, and that I haven’t done anything special, but I really don’t know. Maybe I have “clutch” rehab ability!! (haha)
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 8, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t always raise my performance in pressure situations, but I often do. My focus often is dramatically improved when under the gun. I see no reason why this wouldn’t also apply to professional athletes, and I see no reason to assume that some people rise to the occasion more consistently than I do.
As Chuck indicate, you can’t dismiss this with talk about sample size. The truly serious stat people who have studied this will tell you, you’re not ever going to reach a confidence interval worth respecting when it comes to baseball players, largely because there is such high variance in all play-by-play data to begin with. The lack of adequate sample size and controls just means it’s hard to identify or quantify clutch; it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
In other words, do not assume that there’s no such thing as clutch, but do assume that a statistical argument about this player vs. that one being clutch is almost certainly bogus. I know this is difficult for a lot of fans to accept, because it goes against all of our core Bendixian instincts, but sometimes, the answer really isn’t going to be found in the stats. That goes for clutch hitting, Hafner’s 2009 projections, and a lot of other things.
I mean, all I really have to say is: Casey Blake. QED.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
I do realize there are many things that cannot be answered with stats. But those ‘intangible’ things are much smaller than most people talk about (even the players themselves). Clutch ability may exist, but it is very hard to quantify.
I know people can improve their focus when under the gun, but aren’t most hitters supremely focused during their at-bats anyways? If you only have 3 or 4 at-bats a game, and you’re playing in front of thousands of people for millions of dollars, isn’t that a pressure situations anyways? As I said, I think if a baseball player couldn’t handle pressure then he wouldn’t make it to the major leagues in the first place.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
Clutch ability may exist, but it is very hard to quantify.
For the purpose of baseball, I’m saying it’s basically impossible to quantify. I mean, after ten years of Manny drinking everyone’s milkshake, maybe it’s time to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again:
overall OPS: 1004
2 outs, RISP: 1067
“close and late”: 901
within 4 runs: 1001
not within 4: 1017
“high leverage”: 1018
“medium leverage”: 1018
“low leverage”: 983
Hm … kinda looks like a whole lot of nothing, doesn’t it? And if you can’t really see it in 9000 plate appearances from Manny freakin’ Ramirez, where exactly are you ever going to see it? I mean, Manny essentially is a key data point for the notion that any statistical variance that looks like clutch eventually will vanish as the sample gets larger. Mind you, I’m not saying Manny isn’t clutch, I’m just saying it isn’t to be found in the numbers.
On top of that, one person’s complex response to “leverage” isn’t going to be linear, correlating with a leverage index in any kind of a linear way. People are much more complex than that. Some may respond to certain baserunner situations, some to the number of outs, some to the inning, some to the larger significance of the game. Maybe some guy is going to panic in certain base-out situations but thrive in the postseason; maybe for some other guy, it’s the opposite. If you had a large enough sample, you could start to isolate the factors with regression analysis, but the raw data is so noisy that you’re not ever going to have that large enough sample.
To give yet another teaser, Antonetti had some pretty interesting things to say on this subject.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Course we hafta average out what kinda pitching Mr. Ramirez was facing. My guess is that he saw very little of Scott Bailes and more of John Smoltz in the post season.
I wasn’t using postseason data. The point was just to show what happens when you look at a well-known “clutch guy” with a relatively huge sample of data.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
But Manny is a rare hitter in that he might qualify as one of the best ever, so his numbers are going to be video-game-like in basically every scenario.
Doesn’t change the fact that there’s very little variation between different situations. It could be 900 in one situation and 1150 in another … but it isn’t.
by Jay on Feb 9, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
More to the point. Manny, in 9,000 ABs, mighta faced 1,000 different pithchers in 30 different parks with 3,000 different defenses behind them. Just too many damn variables.
The Mitchell report has pretty much scrubbed my brain from ever being surprised again. It was so pervasive, so accepted, and not illegal (in the eyes of the MLB) that anybody that cared about succeeding would have taken them. Which leaves it open to just about anybody.
I don’t really disparage the era either .. because if the guys in the 70’s and 80’s knew that steroids could have a big impact on their games (like the guys in football knew at that time), they would have been taking them too.
For me, it was the original BALCO raid. It was easy to look at the Sosa/Bonds/Luis Gonzalez/Bret Boone types and think steroids, but I had never thought of guys who didn’t have the cartoonish bodies and late-career surges. But when BALCO was raided, my first thought was: “If Randy Velarde was using, everyone was using.” That’s been my attitude ever since, and the Adam Piatt types that showed up in the Mitchell Report pretty much just validated that thinking.
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 8, 2009 3:09 AM EST up reply actions
So this wasn’t necessary illegal at the time, was it? I mean, if there’s no penalty for doing it, where does that lead? He’s not clean ethically, sure.
Brett Myers is a folk hero now in Philly but Rodriguez is going to burn for this.
Steel Nick
That’s kind of what I’m talking about below. Whether it was strictly legal or not, you and I and Rodriguez and everybody else know it wasn’t right. There’s a reason they did this stuff in private. But the public’s more willing to be upset about it now, which might not be a bad thing.
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sorry, but everybody else didn’t know it was wrong. The whole idea of improving performance using supplements – vitamins, synthetic protein, creatine, etc. – seems perfectly “moral” to me. The use of anabolic steroid precursors seems equally moral to me too – after all cholesterol is an anabolic steroid precursor. It all seems quite arbitrary.
by mauichuck on Feb 7, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Urged on by the same cheerleaders in the media and the baseball offices that celebrated the fabled summer of ’98.
Or to clarify, anyone who didn’t know, should have known. The people running the sport and the people covering it were either complicit or incompetent. And usually in these cases, it’s not incompetence.
Didn’t know what? That some players were using completely legal substances to get bigger and stronger? Like I keep saying: creatine will help blow you up too – and it’s perfectly legal and moral. T-bone steaks’ll do the same. Tell me, exactly what is the criteria for making a substance illegal or immoral?
I don’t know the answer to that. My point is that the people who are publicly pontificating about PEDs (eat your heart out, Jesse Jackson) now were in a position to know what was going on back then. How anyone could have witnessed the home run totals of McGwire and Sosa and Brady F***ing Anderson and not have been suspicious of something is beyond me.
Instead of doing due dligience, they promoted and wrote books and declared that “baseball’s back.” And now they are shocked, SHOCKED.
This blurb from Mike Lupica’s wikipedia entry pretty much says it all:
Lupica also wrote The Summer of ’98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America, which detailed how the 1998 Yankees and the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run chase had allowed him to share a love for baseball with his son.3 Lupica has been listed as a vocal critic of the steroid era.
So when it was happening, the celebrated New York Daily News and ESPN journalist sat in the stands with his kid cheering. When the real story broke (with no help from Lupica), he got on his soapbox.
I know, I know….Lupica is a self-righteous twerp and an easy target, but he’s also pretty representative of the entire business on this subject.
by SuddenSam on Feb 7, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 12 recs
Well, sure. The players were their sources, and the game was their livelihood. So how do we think Chuck’s “moving target” argument plays into all this? Does the media also get a pass because of the mercurial definition of “PED”?
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
Hell no. It’s the media’s job to provide that kind of clarity, not to be befuddled by it and accentuate the public’s vague comprehension.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
As I recall Mark McGuire had a bottle of andro in plain sight in his locker. Pretty sure that he was hiding anything then.
Not swayed. McGuire knew it was there, and his teams knew it was there, and the press knew it was there. It may be that more people than just the players knew, but those who did know were keeping it quiet. And again, you don’t hide something if you don’t care about who finds it. Or is your point that they could have made the players’ PED use public, and nobody in the pre-witchhunt days would have cared?
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
No my point is this: the definition of “PED” is a moving target. When McGuire was "using" Andro it was neither outlawed by the DEA nor banned by baseball. There are lots of other Performance Enhancing substances out there now which are perfectly legal but also carry some health risks. Acetaminophen, for example – that would be the stuff in Tylenol – is hepatotoxic. Eat of fistful of ‘em and it’ll kill you dead. Creatine – something that’s in every musclehead’s diet – is nephrotoxic. Both "enhance performance" Both are perfectly legal/moral today. Either might be banned tomorrow and are used by 90%+ of today’s athletes. But if baseball bans either today, will we be pointing fingers tomorrow? I sure as hell won’t.
Is McGuire interchangeable with McGwire? Because I see this a lot, even though his name is Mark McGwire. And if you enter “Mark McGuire” into Google it still turns up McGwire results.
Steel Nick
I don’t think I ever realized that we were in such agreement on this topic.
by supermarioelia on Feb 7, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
That much I can get behind. How about this methenolone enanthate Rodriguez was taking in 2003? Does your reasoning get him off the hook? (I actually can’t tell.)
I’ll submit, in any event, that this was a conceivable course of events for Rodriguez when he took the drugs. I’m willing to concede that this has become a witchhunt and all, but I think there’s a limit to this “moving target” grandfather clause of yours.
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
This pairof comments from LL really sums it up for me.
This sucks. Just because it’s clear, like Bonds, that Rodriguez was a great player without them. This just tarnishes all great things he has accomplished. I don’t know if that’s fair or not but the perception will stick forever and it’s a shame.
This is the fallacy. For all you know A-Rod has been on steroid since he was in high school.
Perceptions shift. Before the big steroid busts, I was pretty confident Sosa was juicing, but nobody else seemed to care. (Granted, a lot of my friends are Cubs fans.)
I don’t know what it is that woke up our skepticism. Bonds? The home run record? That’s convenient, but I’m not sure it’s accurate.
Ever seen “Three Days of the Condor”? Fantastic flick, really. I bring it up because its protagonist treats the possibility that the U.S. government could conspire against itself as a shock, a revelation. When you see it now, the fact that Robert Redford is startled by the conspiracy is almost charmingly quaint. That’s kind of how I felt when the PED-MLB scandal broke. The Onion, as per usual, was a step ahead of me.
It’s kind of our own fault, I guess, the way some political scandals in the 60s and 70s were own own fault, or the way the financial scandals of the aughts might be — if only in part. In all of those cases we could have demanded more transparency. But we didn’t want to know. And now we’ll make the players pay for our negligence. Not that they don’t deserve to pay. It was a rule, and A-Rod broke it, and that’s beyond defense. It’s just, well, like I said, perceptions shift. Sorry for rambling.
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 4:03 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
A-Rod Also Leading Yankees In Grammatical Errors
NEW YORK—After an embarrassing post-game interview in which Alex Rodriguez committed three sloppy grammatical errors in a single sentence, the Yankee third-baseman moved into the team lead with 57 on the season. “I’m feeling really well out there, and I thought I had proved myself after yesterday’s game, but I just can’t seem to remember that prepositions are not a good thing to end a sentence with,” said Rodriguez, who has been working with Yankees sentence-construction coach Lee Mazzilli on his fielding of questions. “But irregardless of what my critics say, this inflammable problem will be fixed by me.” Rodriguez was also quick to note that he would likely only be third on the team in both grammatical errors and double-negatives if Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield had been healthy and talking all season.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
Irregardless is the best. Supposably, anyway.
Not that I need to kiss up to Jay. He gets hageograffed enough.
Geez, is this what I get for saying all those nice things about you and paying you to interview Travis Hafner!!!!?
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
i don’t think has gotten enough notice.
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 8, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
I feel compelled to note that, unlike irregardless, supposably is actually an acceptable English word (the adv. form of supposable, meaning capable of being supposed). It’s just never used properly.
No one is capable of being a nerd in as many different subject areas as me.
FredOx supposes that he is the most diversely nerdy.
That FredOx is the most diversely nerdy is supposable.
“That FredOx is the most diversely nerdy” hung there in the cyber-air, supposably.
I suppose FredOx is capable of holding tools in the manner of Homo habilis and relatives.
FredOx has supposable thumbs.
I have an excessive attention to detail, and a tendency to make suppositions.
“Logodaedalus Claims He Is Anal, Supposatory”
by Logodaedalus on Feb 9, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
he wasn’t allowed to see these files. part of the total joke that was the Mitchell report.
by APV on Feb 7, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if Boston was playing the Yanks in the 07 ALCS, he would have.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Feb 7, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
102. Bonds is in there—that’s the whole reason the lab had to give out the records, remember? Subpoenas and a good source are the journalist’s best friend.
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 8, 2009 3:17 AM EST up reply actions
Whenever steroids comes up, guys like Chuck flex their medical muscles and school us all on what these different chemicals actually do or don’t do.
Now my question goes out to all the legal minds here: Is someone’s head going to roll since these tests were supposed to be anonymous? Can the MLBPA find someone responsible for this and tear them in half? This seems like someone broke a rule to get the name out.
Steel Nick
I think so. I’ve seen a few media reports that suggest the lab was contractually obligated NOT to put names to the samples. Whether this is true or not—the media never seems to get the law quite right—I can’t imagine there isn’t at least a breach of contract claim. Then again, the MLBPA wasn’t party to that contract.
I also think there’s at least a small possibility the Players’ Association could bring some sort of action in tort against MLB for their failure to properly oversee the procedure. What form that legal claim would take is not a question I could answer at 3:30 in the morning.
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 8, 2009 3:23 AM EST up reply actions
Shysterball has a post about this story and I’m sure he’ll have more about it down the road. For those of you who don’t know, he’s a lawyer from Columbus who blogs about baseball. His blog is now part of THT. He doesn’t mention anything in that post about the legal aspects of this release but I’ll be he does in later posts (or you can always make a comment and ask him). He does suggest that the union go ahead and release all the names right now and get it over with instead of letting names leak here and there for many years.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
I’m thinking someone is getting sued for this, especially if they can find the source.
The union contracted to keep these names secret. I’m not sure of the entire ramifications of the subpoena, but the MLB had to comply with it, no question there. If the source is an employee of MLB, there is going to be a huge suit for breach of contract. If the source is an employee of a law firm or some non-government third party, there could be a creative tort action. If the source is a federal employee, it will be tough to do anything from a civil law suit angle. Regardless of that, the source almost certainly violated a court order mandating that this information be kept confidential and said source will likely face a motion for contempt.
As much as I don’t care anymore about who did steroids, this new twist has me very interested.
You’re right: this is a tremendous violation. MLB has to protect the confidentiality of those they assured. If the government manages to subpoena this info there will be a war. I think that’s why the Mitchell report took place: to get out in front of the investigation and mitigate the possibility of disaster.
BTW Voltaire I’m still waiting for your definitive piece on Cazzi Colune Sabathia. When’s it gonna come out?
From Buster Olney:
All McGwire said was that he did not want to talk about the past, and he is essentially persona non grata, and so is Rafael Palmeiro, who wagged a finger at congressmen and insisted that he never used steroids. Roger Clemens is not really wanted at the Astros’ spring training home anymore, the way he once was, and he probably will never get in the Hall of Fame, either. Probably, none of them will, including Bonds and Rodriguez.
Haha put the torch down Buster. The report came out just hours ago and he’s now professing that A-Rod will probably never get into the Hall of Fame.
Another quote:
In 2003, the players knew they would be tested for performance-enhancing drugs, and had a pretty good idea of when they would be tested — and yet presumably, at least 104 barreled ahead and peed into bottles when they knew there was a chance they would be dirty; reportedly, A-Rod was among those.
I’m kinda confused about the timeline of baseball’s drug policy. Were they testing in 2003, but the substance A-Rod was using is illegal now and wasn’t illegal then? Or were they just testing to see what the prevalence was? I just want to get a feel for why this is coming out now.
by supermarioelia on Feb 7, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
Gah I was really hoping for a clarification on the timeline….Jay any insight on this? I know these contexty issues are your specialty haha.
by supermarioelia on Feb 8, 2009 2:22 AM EST up reply actions
All federally illegal substances were banned as of 1993 or so, but there was no testing and no penalty for using them until 2004. There is a legal argument that since non-enforcement was the absolute rule, there essentially was no ban during that period. A law that is never enforced at some point ceases to be an enforceable law.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 8:29 AM EST up reply actions
All federally illegal substances were banned as of 1993
That’s 100% correct. The problem is that the majority of hormones currently on that list were added by the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act. That’s when androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; 1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. "1-testosterone"); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. "17-a-methyl-1-testosterone"); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone were added to the list.
Lotsa “ones” in there, huh? Tough to keep inside the lines, especially when a bunch of these hormones are naturally occuring and contained in a whole host of supplements.
So this is the source of the “Bonds didn’t do anything wrong” story from a few years ago — that when he tested positive for whatever it was at some point, the substance hadn’t been banned yet.
Between the moving-target legality, moving-target enforcement, and legitimate medical purposes which are genuinely hard to separate from “performance enhancement” … this whole thing is just so stupid.
Are we doing this for the children? Because if it’s about a level playing field, the players seemed to be taking care of that on their own, i.e., most everybody was using when they felt it was necessary or appropriate.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Well put.
If it is for the children, then the lawmakers should be providing the guidance to make certain PEDs/medical procedures/whatever illegal for anyone under a certain age (and illegal to distribute), and that’s really as far as we can expect to get with that issue. Because as far as creating a moral framework that children can look to, that ship sailed away years ago.
by supermarioelia on Feb 8, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
The ship sailing on moral framework goes far beyond pro athletes. The willingness to cheat or take unreasonable health risks stems directly from a culture that values financial success and “winning” above all else. How else do you get a bunch of seemingly intelligent people on TV, talking about how much they’ve always admired Donald Trump?
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Plus, just about anytime somebody gets on his high horse and talks about the children, it’s fake outrage and lame morality. When Mike Lupica is outraged “for the kids”—and I’m not sure he is, I just presume it—it’s worse than Shoeless Joe saying he done it for the wife and kiddies.
I solemnly swear not to read a single piece of expert commentary re: Rodriguez’s PED use. Ever.
by fleerdon on Feb 7, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve always believed there’s a twist to the steroid stuff. Many people—the Mike Lupicas, if you will—are outraged by the use of creatine, etc. But, as this article states quite convincingly, the most likely explanation for the insane offenses between 1994 and 2007 is a rabbit ball. MLB was coming off a devastating strike. What better way to get people back in the seats than offenses that resemble a video game? If steroids were the cause, wouldn’t pitchers also take them? Why all the advantage to sluggers? (As Jay points out, pitchers and slap hitters have been caught more often than sluggers.)
The moral dilemma for Bud Selig et al. is twofold: they can’t release the data from the testing without having a war with the Player’s Association. And they can’t come to the defence of players by admitting, “Well, it wasn’t steroids, folks. We really juiced up the ball.” Because that would be a travesty even worse than the drug one.
Either way, there is plenty to be morally outraged about in our world. Mark McGwire taking creatine is pretty far down the list.
Well, there is one little problem with this theory, and that is, the 1994 season was played before the strike.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, so that screws my motivation, but it doesn’t disprove that a significant abrupt increase in offense occurred in 1994. As the article questions: Did everyone start using steroids in 1994?
I don’t remember the thinking in spring of 1994, but wasn’t everybody already pissed off that the CBA had expired in December 1993 and we were once again heading for an inevitable strike? Weren’t we all disgusted with collusion, Jerry Reinsdorf, Doug Fehr?
pitchers and slap hitters have been caught more often than sluggers
Except – except the most obvious users – Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Cancesco – were all power hitters. And one more thing. Every kid who’s ever picked up a bat knows the harder they throw the farther it’ll go. So if pitchers were usin’ to get another 2-4 mph on their fastball then when one of the sluggers did connect, it was really gonna go.
.
“Most obvious” = received the most press coverage, which is a direct result of the media’s misapprehension of these issues.
“Most obvious” doesn’t actually mean anything, outside of media-driven perception.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe “having the most impact on the game” mighta been better. I kinda agree with your earlier statement about slap hitters. Guys on the fringe are more motivated to cheat than guys with great natural ability. Jason Davis or Jamie Carroll might be usin’ too. Only they have little, if any, impact on attendance.
Here’s my point: get bigger, stronger hitters up against pitchers throwing pitches with 10% more kinetic energy and you’re gonna see some monstrous home runs – like in the 90s.
Well, I don’t entirely disagree, but I do disagree somewhat. The substances potentially enhance performance in two significant ways. (1) The direct benefit of improved recovery from injury and fatigue. (2) The indirect benefit that improved recovery can help a player build raw strength.
Everyone stands to benefit from improved recovery, but pitchers moreso than hitters, for the simple reason that pitching is more inherently injurious than hitting — it’s more unnatural, and we know for a fact that across all players, pitching injuries are common and more serious.
I would argue strongly that both pitchers and “non-slugger” hitters stand to benefit the most from improved raw strength. Bat speed is always an issue, but sluggers have lots of it already, and they are beyond a point of diminishing returns. I’m not saying that there’s no return on improved strength for someone who can already hit 25-30 homers, but I am saying that they benefit less from that improvement than slap hitters do. Slap hitters are trying to turn bouncers into line drives, and at least a few of those long flies into excuse-me home runs. Hitting is much more about skill and reflex than about strength, and for someone who’s already naturally strong, that’s even more the case.
Jason Davis seems quite unlikely to be helped by steroids. He has tremendous raw velocity, but his command was piss-poor, and his movement wasn’t great either. His ability to throw hard was never in question. But most big-league pitchers aren’t Jason Davis. Most of them badly need another few mph, both for a more credible fastball and for greater separation between the fastball and off-speed stuff. And remember, it’s not just about how hard you can throw, it’s about how hard you can throw with good control. Maybe you can rear back and hurl 91, but you sit at 86-87 when really pitching. Change those numbers to 95 and 90-91, and you’ve got a whole different pitcher.
I still think the primary benefit is improved recovery, which benefits everyone. But the secondary strength benefit is not primarily about sluggers, nor is it about guys who can already throw 97. If I’ve got this all wrong, please explain.
But the major power guys – Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Canseco, Clemens – were all (presumably) using. And the slap guys needed the stuff even more. Ergo, everybody was doing it?
(a) maybe.
(b) There are a ton of “major power guys” who were never implicated — Thome, Ramirez and Bagwell just for starters.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Lot’s of moving parts to analyzing all of this. Bat speed, how close to dead center the ball meets the bat, bat deflection and a whole host of other variables – all quantifiable I might add – go into determining how far a ball will go with a given swing. Some of those variables are influenced by how strong the hitter is – you mentioned bat speed, I’d add the effective mass of the hitter – how much deflection he absorbs – as another that’s strength driven. Now if the hitter is just a micron or two off dead center he can lose 10-15% of the bat energy, but if he’s strong enough, that swing might still result in a home run. So the guy with just a 10% increase in strength – pretty doable with the right program – may hit 50% more HRs. It’s hard to quantify. And this is just the simplest, most quantifiable part of the analysis.
Recovery’s a whole other kettle of fish. A lot more subjective analysis here, not a lot of quantifiable data. First off there’s no drug/hormone I know of that’s been shown to effectively increase the recovery rate of tendons. Might be some evidence out there, but I’m unaware of it. So if you’ve got a tendon/connective tissue injury, anabolic steroids are not gonna help much. Anti-inflammatory steroids (like cortisone) will – confusing ain’t it? – since the decrease in inflammation results in better blood flow and therefore accelerates healing. However there is good evidence that 17-keto steroids – what most docs agree are the "anabolic" steroid – will increase muscle mass and strength – but have less effect on inflammation. Pretty complicated, huh?
Now as to pitcher’s strength and what percent of their max they are throwing at, and how effective they are; that’s a very, very individual thing. As all of us Tribe fans know, when a certain overweight, ex-Indian’s pitcher usta throw at his absolute maximum he’d get shelled. When he’d back off 5% or so, he was damn near un-hittable. But if you’d up his strength 5% so that at 95% he was hitting the same mph as before at 100%, he might be even more un-hittable – if that makes any sense.
Bottom line: I’m gonna go with stronger baseball players are better baseball players as a general rule.
Also, this seems causally confused. What about Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Albert Belle, Ken Griffey—players who are generally assumed not to be users?
You could be right. But what makes people assume Thomas was clean and, say, Kevin Elster? In lieu of evidence, why are we so sure some are clean and others are not? How big the Big Hurt get his rep as a clean huy? Or Curt Schilling?
Big Hurt got the rep through his actions over the last several years. Maybe its just a good PR campaign on his part, but its not like his rep for cleanness came out of nowhere.
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/02/08/mystery-player/#more-1603
Especially on point:
Thomas is obviously back in the news because of A-Rod and because Thomas has been so publicly on the other side of the steroid story. Thomas was the only active player who was willing to talk to the people who put together the Mitchell Report. He was publicly outspoken about the need for drug testing in baseball, going back more than a decade.
Like A-Rod appeared to be weight room strong? Why does “country strong” get a free pass here? “Hey, he’s a bit chubby so he must be clean.” That makes no sense. Without any evidence, Thome is just as likely a suspect as anyone.
And not having lean muscle means what, exactly? It’s entirely possible to use a ped of one type or another without looking like a Greek god. It seems odd to me to give a player a free pass just because he has a body type we don’t associate with ped’s.
I meant it as a joke, referring to that very tendency.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions